The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a challenge to Tennessee’s law restricting gender-affirming care for minors, marking its first substantive review of this complex and politically fraught issue.
Tennessee’s law, enacted last year, bans hormone therapy and puberty blockers for minors and imposes civil penalties on doctors who violate the prohibitions. It is one among many state laws targeting transgender care that have been passed in recent years.
The Biden administration has challenged these laws as violating the rights of trans youth to receive necessary medical treatment without interference from their parents or lawmakers. Nearly half of US states have enacted bans on transgender care for minors, according to the Human Rights Campaign.
This case will be heard this fall and sets up a major showdown between state governments and federal authorities over how gender-affirming care should be regulated.
Steve Vladeck, CNN Supreme Court analyst and professor at the University of Texas School of Law, notes that “The Supreme Court was always going to have to resolve how state bans on gender-affirming medical care can be reconciled with its approach to sex-based discrimination. Today’s grant sets up this issue as one of the early blockbusters for the Court’s upcoming term.”
Laws in Kentucky and Tennessee were challenged by the Biden administration and families of transgender minors, but only Tennessee agreed to have their case heard before the Supreme Court.
The legal fights over similar bans have been moving through federal courts for more than a year. In April, the Supreme Court allowed Idaho officials to temporarily enforce a strict statewide ban on gender-affirming care for most minors, although it did so on a temporary basis without resolving the underlying questions posed by the case.
Tennessee’s law says that medical providers cannot perform procedures that “enable a minor to identify with or live as” someone of another sex. Opponents argue that these laws not only violate the civil rights of trans youth but also run afoul of parents’ rights to make decisions about their child’s medical care.
As this issue continues to unfold, it remains unclear how the Supreme Court will ultimately rule on gender-affirming care for minors. One thing is certain, however: this case has significant implications not just for transgender individuals and families but also for our broader understanding of what constitutes appropriate government regulation in matters of personal health and well-being.
In related news, Jeff Bezos interrupts holiday with wife to deal with Washington Post strife; “Christian privilege” in Colorado mountain town’s amphitheater fuels church-and-state storm.